20 C.F.R. § 404.1513

Categories of evidence

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) What we mean by evidence. Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b), evidence is anything you or anyone else submits to us or that we obtain that relates to your claim. We consider evidence under §§ 404.1520b, 404.1520c (or under § 404.1527 for claims filed (see § 404.614) before March 27, 2017). We evaluate evidence we receive according to the rules pertaining to the relevant category of evidence. The categories of evidence are:

(1) Objective medical evidence. Objective medical evidence is medical signs, laboratory findings, or both, as defined in § 404.1502(f).

(2) Medical opinion. A medical opinion is a statement from a medical source about what you can still do despite your impairment(s) and whether you have one or more impairment-related limitations or restrictions in the following abilities: (For claims filed (see § 404.614) before March 27, 2017, see § 404.1527(a) for the definition of medical opinion.)

(i) Your ability to perform physical demands of work activities, such as sitting, standing, walking, lifting, carrying, pushing, pulling, or other physical functions (including manipulative or postural functions, such as reaching, handling, stooping, or crouching);

(ii) Your ability to perform mental demands of work activities, such as understanding; remembering; maintaining concentration, persistence, or pace; carrying out instructions; or responding appropriately to supervision, co-workers, or work pressures in a work setting;

(iii) Your ability to perform other demands of work, such as seeing, hearing, or using other senses; and

(iv) Your ability to adapt to environmental conditions, such as temperature extremes or fumes.

(3) Other medical evidence. Other medical evidence is evidence from a medical source that is not objective medical evidence or a medical opinion, including judgments about the nature and severity of your impairments, your medical history, clinical findings, diagnosis, treatment prescribed with response, or prognosis. (For claims filed (see § 404.614) before March 27, 2017, other medical evidence does not include a diagnosis, prognosis, or a statement that reflects a judgment(s) about the nature and severity of your impairment(s)).

(4) Evidence from nonmedical sources. Evidence from nonmedical sources is any information or statement(s) from a nonmedical source (including you) about any issue in your claim. We may receive evidence from nonmedical sources either directly from the nonmedical source or indirectly, such as from forms we receive and our administrative records.

(5) Prior administrative medical finding. A prior administrative medical finding is a finding, other than the ultimate determination about whether you are disabled, about a medical issue made by our Federal and State agency medical and psychological consultants at a prior level of review (see § 404.900) in your current claim based on their review of the evidence in your case record, such as:

(i) The existence and severity of your impairment(s);

(ii) The existence and severity of your symptoms;

(iii) Statements about whether your impairment(s) meets or medically equals any listing in the Listing of Impairments in Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1;

(iv) Your residual functional capacity;

(v) Whether your impairment(s) meets the duration requirement; and

(vi) How failure to follow prescribed treatment (see § 404.1530) and drug addiction and alcoholism (see § 404.1535) relate to your claim.

(b) Exceptions for privileged communications.

(1) The privileged communications listed in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section are not evidence, and we will neither consider nor provide any analysis about them in your determination or decision. This exception for privileged communications applies equally whether your representative is an attorney or a non-attorney.

(i) Oral or written communications between you and your representative that are subject to the attorney-client privilege, unless you voluntarily disclose the communication to us.

(ii) Your representative's analysis of your claim, unless he or she voluntarily discloses it to us. This analysis means information that is subject to the attorney work product doctrine, but it does not include medical evidence, medical opinions, or any other factual matter that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits (see paragraph (b)(2) of this section).

(2) The attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications between an attorney and his or her client that are related to providing or obtaining legal advice. The attorney work product doctrine generally protects an attorney's analyses, theories, mental impressions, and notes. In the context of your disability claim, neither the attorney-client privilege nor the attorney work product doctrine allow you to withhold factual information, medical opinions, or other medical evidence that we may consider in determining whether or not you are entitled to benefits. For example, if you tell your representative about the medical sources you have seen, your representative cannot refuse to disclose the identity of those medical sources to us based on the attorney-client privilege. As another example, if your representative asks a medical source to complete an opinion form related to your impairment(s), symptoms, or limitations, your representative cannot withhold the completed opinion form from us based on the attorney work product doctrine. The attorney work product doctrine would not protect the source's opinions on the completed form, regardless of whether or not your representative used the form in his or her analysis of your claim or made handwritten notes on the face of the report.

[82 FR 5865, Jan. 18, 2017; 82 FR 15132, Mar. 27, 2017]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3,193 cases (1,964 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 6× “" 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 (a). Physician's assistants are defined as "other sources," § 404.”

Jasim Ghanim v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 763 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “3d at 1111 (alteration in original); see also 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 (a). Nurse practitioners and therapists are considered “other sources.”

Sarah Dale v. Carolyn Colvin, 823 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 (a) & (d)(1). The panel held that an ALJ errs when he discounts an other source’s entire testimony because of inconsistency with evidence in the record, where the ALJ had divided the testimony into distinct parts and determined that only one part of the…”

Turner v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 613 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 (a), (d). The regulations treat "[p]ublic and private social welfare agency personnel" as "other sources," 20 C.”

Paula Michel v. Carolyn W. Colvin, 640 F. App'x 585 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “2005) (per curiam) (quoting 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513 , 416.913). Instead, "[a] therapist's assessment is 'other medical evidence.”

Durden v. Colvin, 191 F. Supp. 3d 429 (M.D. Penn. 2016). · cites it 3× “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513 , 404.1527, 416.913, 416.”

Kim Van Nguyen v. Shirley S. Chater, Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 100 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1996). · cites it 4× “20 CFR § 404.1513 (a). However, lay witness testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms or how an impairment affects ability to work is competent evidence, 20 CFR § 404.”

Gordon Stout v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin., 454 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “1993); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513 (d)(4) & (e), 416.913(d)(4) & (e).”

Frantz v. Astrue, 509 F.3d 1299 (10th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 404.1513 (a). Only “acceptable medical sources” can provide evidence to establish the existence of a medically determinable impairment, id.”

Bruce v. Astrue, 557 F.3d 1113 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “2006); see also 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1513 (d)(4), (e). Such testimony is competent evidence and “cannot be disregarded without comment.”

Clarence WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Comm'r OF Soc. Sec., Defendant-Appellee, 127 F.3d 525 (6th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “The controlling weight provision is found under a section heading that refers specifically to medical opinions, and in the regulations chiropractor opinions are not listed as one of the five types of “acceptable medical sources” but are instead listed under the separate heading…”

Weidman v. Colvin, 164 F. Supp. 3d 650 (M.D. Penn. 2015). · cites it 5× “Only licensed physicians (medical or osteopathic doctors), licensed or certified psychologists, licensed optometrists, licensed podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists are considered “acceptable medical sources.”

Show all 3,193 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(A)(3) — 1 case

Lesh v. Kijakazi (M.D. Penn. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a) — 34 cases

Kim Van Nguyen v. Shirley S. Chater, Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 100 F.3d 1462 (9th Cir. 1996). “20 CFR § 404.1513 (a). However, lay witness testimony as to a claimant’s symptoms or how an impairment affects ability to work is competent evidence, 20 CFR § 404.”

Hatton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 131 F. App'x 877 (3rd Cir. 2005).

Bennett v. Colvin, 202 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2016).

Mandziej v. Chater, 944 F. Supp. 121 (D.N.H. 1996).

Santiago v. Barnhart, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1049 (N.D. Cal. 2003).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(1) — 5 cases

Velvet Lovette Jackson King v. Kilolo Kijakazi (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Zepeda v. Soc. Sec. (D. Nev. 2022).

Baker v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (N.D. Okla. 2023).

Lyles v. Kijakazi (S.D. Ala. 2024).

Lesh v. Kijakazi (M.D. Penn. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(2) — 35 cases

Stephanie Hill v. Comm'r Of Soc. Sec., 560 F. App'x 547 (6th Cir. 2014).

Hampton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Marish v. O'malley (S.D. Ind. 2022).

White v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r of (D. Kan. 2022).

McClellon v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.S.C. 2021).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(2)(i) — 1 case

Hampton v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Cal. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(2)(ii) — 1 case

Killman v. Dudek (D. Nev. 2025).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(3) — 5 cases

Gonzalez-Alvarez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.P.R. 2024).

Ewers v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Colo. 2023).

Kava v. Saul (D. Haw. 2021).

Garcia-Torres v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.P.R. 2024).

Metcalf v. Kijakazi (S.D. Ga. 2024).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(4) — 2 cases

(SS)Bermudez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Santiago v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (D.N.J. 2025).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(5) — 1 case

Hutchins v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (E.D. Ark. 2023).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(a)(e) — 4 cases

Kenneth Decarlo Victorian v. Nancy A. Berryhill (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Albert Castro v. Nancy A. Berryhill (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Fischer v. Kijakazi (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Youngwirth v. Berryhill (D. Nev. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(b) — 3 cases

Vazquez v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (N.D.N.Y. 2020).

Rivera v. Soc. Sec. (1st Cir. 1998).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(b)(6) — 2 cases

Strauss v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin., 635 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011).

Gerena v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 618 F. Supp. 246 (D.P.R. 1985).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(c) — 1 case

Williams v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r of (E.D. Tenn. 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d) — 24 cases

Bowman v. Astrue, 511 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir. 2008).

Matejka v. Barnhart, 386 F. Supp. 2d 198 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).

Saxon v. Astrue, 781 F. Supp. 2d 92 (N.D.N.Y. 2011).

Heather M. v. Berryhill, 384 F. Supp. 3d 928 (E.D. Ill. 2019).

Winning v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 661 F. Supp. 2d 807 (N.D. Ohio 2009).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d)(1) — 4 cases

Sullivan v. Astrue, 825 F. Supp. 2d 928 (N.D. Ill. 2011).

Zamfino v. Berryhill (D. Conn. 2019).

Hall v. Berryhill (E.D. Mo. 2019).

Borrego v. Astrue, 825 F. Supp. 2d 779 (W.D. Tex. 2011).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d)(3) — 2 cases

Samuel Van Zornek v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Dave Buzzotta v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (C.D. Cal. 2019).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(d)(4) — 5 cases

Debbie T. Terry v. Soc. Sec. Admin. (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Jose Luis Barajas v. Kilolo Kijakazi (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Margarita Saldivar v. Nancy A. Berryhill (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Latosha Latrice Nowden v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Margarito Bahena Estrada v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (C.D. Cal. 2020).

— 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513(e) — 6 cases

Lechner v. Barnhart, 321 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (E.D. Wis. 2004).

Rogers v. Barnhart, 446 F. Supp. 2d 828 (N.D. Ill. 2006).

Puente v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 130 F. Supp. 3d 881 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

Bowser v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 121 F. App'x 231 (9th Cir. 2005).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.